Current visibility
How the company appears today in Google and in AI answers for brand and category queries.
A technical and editorial diagnosis of how Google, ChatGPT and other AI search engines discover, understand and cite your company, with a prioritised roadmap to fix it.
It is a manual review, carried out by specialists, of how your company appears today in AI search engines and of the technical, semantic and authority causes behind it. It ends in a prioritised roadmap.
It is requested through a form: it is not an automatic or instant report, and it does not guarantee specific mentions, citations or recommendations.
Fictional demo data. It does not correspond to a client, domain or measurement carried out by Majotek. The percentages only show how metrics would be separated in a deliverable; they are not a benchmark.
| Metric | Fictional example | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Prompt coverage | 32% | Answers in the prompt set where the entity appears. |
| Mention rate | 24% | Answers that name the entity in the text. |
| Citation rate | 11% | Answers that link to a first-party URL as a source. |
| Entity accuracy | 67% | Answers coded as consistent with verifiable company information. |
How the company appears today in Google and in AI answers for brand and category queries.
In which part of a documented set of relevant prompts the brand appears.
When the company is named in the answer text, in what context and with what tone.
Which own and third-party URLs are cited as sources when the interface shows them.
Whether the answer describes services, category, scope and facts about the company correctly.
What each engine understands the company to be, and what it confuses it with or associates it with.
Who appears in your place, with which arguments and on which sources.
Which third-party pages and media feed the answers in your category.
Robots, search bots, canonicals, sitemap, redirects and HTML retrievable without JavaScript.
Structured data consistent with visible content: organisation, services, authors, articles.
URL hierarchy, internal linking, orphan pages and cannibalisation between intents.
Depth of services, cases and resources; direct answers, definitions, tables and FAQs.
Mentions, directories, comparisons and third-party references that corroborate your site.
Impressions, clicks, queries and pages that show the SEO base GEO builds on.
Visits from AI platforms when they exist and can be attributed.
Actions ordered by impact and effort, with owners and a measurement criterion.
| Engine | What is observed | Limit to keep in mind |
|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT | Mentions, sources cited when shown, and accuracy of the description. | Answers vary by user, context and moment. |
| Google AI Overviews and AI Mode | Brand presence and URLs linked next to the generated answer. | Depends on the query and on whether the feature triggers for it. |
| Gemini | Mentions and entity understanding. | Source visibility is limited depending on the interface. |
| Perplexity | Sources cited and how they relate to your URLs. | Shows sources explicitly, but the set changes between runs. |
| Claude | Mentions and description of the company where the query allows. | Behaviour with and without web search differs. |
You fill in the form with domain, company and, if you wish, industry and context.
A first conversation to agree market, competitors, engines, prompts and terms.
Running the prompt set per engine, technical review of the site and source analysis.
Delivery of findings and a prioritised plan. You can then execute it yourself or with Majotek.
Invented for teaching purposes: it does not correspond to any client and contains no real data.
A fictional B2B software company appears when its brand is asked about, but not when its category is. Answers describe it as “consulting” rather than “software”, and the cited sources are third-party directories, not its website.
Reading: the entity is ambiguous and the site offers no citable definition of the category. P0 roadmap actions: rewrite the service page with a clear definition, align name and category on external profiles and create a category guide linked from the service.
| Topic | GEO audit | GEO implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Diagnose and prioritise. | Execute the roadmap changes. |
| Outcome | Findings, documented prompts and an action plan. | Pages, schema, linking and content published and measured. |
| When it fits | When it is unclear where to act first. | When there is criteria and capacity to execute. |
| Dependency | Can later be executed by your team, another agency or Majotek. | Requires site access and continuity. |
It is not presented as free or automated. You request it through a form, a specialist reviews the domain and scope, and terms are agreed in a first conversation. No instant report is generated.
They are chosen according to where each company's buyer does research. The usual starting point is ChatGPT, Google (AI Overviews and AI Mode), Gemini, Perplexity and Claude, each treated separately because they do not behave alike.
No. No audit can guarantee specific mentions, citations or recommendations. It identifies which signals exist, which are missing and in what order to fix them.
The audit diagnoses and prioritises: it delivers findings and a roadmap. Implementation carries out the technical and editorial changes in that roadmap. They can be hired separately.
The domain, the market and the competitors you care about and, where available, Search Console and analytics access. The prompts to evaluate are agreed together from how your buyer actually asks.
It depends on site size and on the number of engines and prompts. It is defined when scope is agreed; there is no fixed public timeline.
We will review the domain and reply by email to agree scope. Data is handled under the privacy policy and no automated report is generated.
